New York Times Co. v. United States

Ellsberg, a Pentagon worker, stole governemnt documents concerning the war in Vietnam.  He wanted to reveal the intentions of the government to the angry public.  He gave the documents to the New York Times.  They published it until they were forbade.  The case went to the Supreme court right away where they issued per curiam, where all judges wrote seperate opinions.  The Supreme Court had opposite views, but they ended up allowing the publishing of these papers.

    I agree with all of the individual judges and their opinions.  However, I would have to agree with the overall ruling.  I do think that the public needs to know the government's doings.  I also think they have a right to keep certain things secret.  This was not a case to decide the future of either of these ideas.  They only decided to allow this particular document to be released, which was appropriate.  A more secretive document that doesn't harm people but needs to be kept secret should be protected, though.

    Many people agreed with this ruling at the time, and it's generally accepted that the government should not keep anything like this secret.  Although this has no lasting effects, there are still controversies over what the government can and cannot hold onto.  Documents like these should be released, but anything harmful to the nation is widely considered something that should be kept a secret.